Leaderboard

The first thing I wanna say here is that rings are totally irrelevant to determine who the best player here is. Most people think that Duncan is clearly the best of the two because he won rings which is something that I always found to be totally ludicrous. The Duncan's Spurs never had to play against the Jordan's Bulls and if they had I am 100% sure that the Bulls would have beaten them. Besides I watched both the Duncan's Spurs and Malone's Jazz play and there is no doubt in my mind that the Jazz, especialy in the late 90's, were a better team than all the 2000's Spurs teams. Not by far, don't get me wrong, but they were better overall teams. So if the Spurs had played in the 90's I am sure that Duncan would be ringless and if the Jazz had played in the 2000's I am sure that Malone would have at least a couple of rings. So the rings argument is just totally irrelevant. Then I have to say that I agree with Real Deal about the 2003 Lakers. I heard quite some times people saying that the Spurs could have definitely beaten the Jordan's Bulls as they beat the O'Neal-Bryant's Lakers but the fact is just that the 2003 Lakers had nothing to do with the 2000-01-02 Lakers. First of all the early 2000's Lakers strength was that every year they managed to sign some quality veterans to surround the two stars and the three superfriends. Yet they did not manage to do that in the summer of 2001. They only signed Walker and Hunter. Walker turned out to be a big disappointment (not that big cause I never expected him to become a great player and I'm certainly sure that I wasn't the only one..) and Hunter was just not the same player that he was in his Pistons days. He used to be one of the greatest shooters in the league but at some point he just totally lost his shot and never got it back. And so did not in his Lakers days. Lindsey was still usefull for his defense but that's it. So the 2002 Lakers managed to get a ring with ONLY Shaq-Kobe and the superfriends that were Horry-Fish-Fox. Horry even had to start because of that that year, Phil wanted to use him on the bench but he just couldn't. Oh and George as the sixth man. But that's it. The still managed to get a ring but it was clear that they HAD to get some quality players the following summer. Yet they just did not... So the following year we were back with the same team, with only six quality players and a clear lack of depth. It was already very hard to win a ring with so little depth but two... Not only that but this year was the year that Shaq and Kobe just couldn't stand each other for good. As a matter of fact before that Phil always found a way to get those two back together but this time even he could not... They both played for themselves. The result ? The chemistry of the team was forever broken. Well until one of the two would eventually leave (I wasn't surprised when Shaq was traded in 04, either him of Kobe HAD to leave). But that's not all... On top of that, this year Robert Horry, definitely a key player of the team at the time, the Lakers wouldn't have won three in a row without his clutch D and shots, TOTALLY lost his game. Many people thought that he was just done. I was one of them. And was wrong as we all know that Bob got back to his true self the following year with the Spurs... So when you combine all of this it was not surprising to see the Lakers struggle this year. Many might not remember this but there were even doubts that the Lakers would make the playoffs that year. They were not a playoffs team at mid season. They still managed to get better in the second part of the season and eventually make the playoffs. But because of all of this they were never themselves during the playoffs and it was just not surprising to see them lose in the playoffs. Especially that Rick Fox got injured and missed most of the playoffs games in the playoffs... So the Spurs beat a Lakers team that basically had only four good players : O'Neal, Bryant, Fish and George. And two of them, the two superstars, dispised each other more than ever. So the team that the Spurs beat, in six games, just had nothing to do with the three peats teams. And I am personally sure that the Spurs would have never beaten the 2000-02-03 Lakers. So anyway the ring argument is just plainly flawed. Now let's compare the two players individually. I first want to say something, I have seen too many times the words "easily" or "significantly better" in this thread. The fact is that both players were very good on both ends of the floor and it's just impossible to say that one of them was "by far" better than the other in any area. First of all let's compare the two players offensively. It is true that Malone has overall averaged better numbers there. But when we look more closely at it we can see that both had a very effective mid range jump shot. I'd give the advantage to Malone there. But Duncan had better post moves than Karl. Tim is probably even the PF that has the best post moves ever, with McHale. So Tim has a better offensive repertoire overall. I think I would still give the edge to Malone there but it is arguable nonetheless. Now both players were terrific passers. But I think I would give the edge to Duncan there though, he was a bit better than Karl IMO. Defensively we have two of the best defensive PFs of All Time. Malone was a fantastic defender. But I can't put him over Duncan in that area. Because, honestly, in terms of defense and rebounds, and at the exception of Dennis Rodman of course, Tim is definitely the best that we ever seen at the PF position in my opinion. The most important area for me, when talking about the All Time great, is clutchness, leadership and dominance. I said in another thread that in my opinion a case could be made for Dirk as the best PF ever because of his leadership and dominance on the offensive end during the last playoffs run. Honestly I have very rarely seen a player take over in the fourth like he did. It was very impressive. And that is why I think that a case can definitely be made for him over every other PF. Except... yeah Tim Duncan. Why ? Because Tim happens to have had the same kind of dominant performance, not only offensively but also defensively. As a matter of fact Duncan not only destroyed his opponents offensively but he also annihilated them on the defensive end. In 2003 Tim just had one of the greatest performances ever. And he even had two of the most impressive games ever that year, in game 1 of the Finals with 32 PTS, 20 REB, 6 AST, 3 STL, 7 BLK and in game 6 of the same Finals with 21 PTS, 20 REB, 10 AST, 8 BLK. Duncan averaged 24.2 points, 17 rebounds, 5.3 assists and 5.3 blocks during those Finals. His BPG happens to be the most for any player since the NBA-ABA merger. Also back to the game 6, it's important to remember that the Nets were leading by 8 at the beginning of the 4th and it's totally thanks to Duncan that they got back into the game and eventually won it, Tim not only took over on the offensive end but destroyed Martin on the defensive end, he forced him to a pathetic 3/23 in this game. So honestly, as much as I would love to say that Malone is the best PF of All Time, I just can't, it's in my opinion just impossible to make a case against Tim for best PF ever.

Lol stop with the calm shit, everybody is calm. We're just excited to get this moving.